Current Events » in reply to you no doubt base this on their rush to help Iraq right? Only someone satisfied with the satus quo would do nothing but make chest beating speeches

The whole thread (41 posts)

• Bush U.N. speech persuades few - Don - 9/24/2003 4:56:22 AM
  • Meanwhile: Baghdad Blasts Undermine Bush Bid for Iraq Backing - Don - 9/24/2003 2:06:34 PM
    • is this some of your primo evidence we should let the UN take over? - Buster - 9/24/2003 10:10:10 PM
    • And: One Year After Dossier, UK Intelligence Under Fire - Don - 9/24/2003 2:12:38 PM
  • Bush refuses to kiss U.N. ass - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 6:32:09 AM
    • Why did he address the UN, then? - alcaray - 9/24/2003 5:28:41 PM
      • can't answer a simple question can you? - Buster - 9/25/2003 1:13:47 AM
        • Read Mary Anne's simple answer. Don't get why you think it's such a hard question. (n/t) - alcaray - 9/25/2003 4:28:22 PM
          • I don't. you're the one that didn't answer it (n/t) - Buster - 9/25/2003 10:53:40 PM
            • All right, knucklehead - alcaray - 9/25/2003 11:38:06 PM
              • Meaningless arguments - Tom Brosz - 9/26/2003 12:00:11 AM
                • If you assert that none of the items on my list are valid... - alcaray - 9/26/2003 3:55:46 PM
                  • Whoa...just noticed a big chunk of my post disappeared. - Tom Brosz - 9/26/2003 8:39:22 PM
        • A couple benefits of UN support that we don't have - Mary Anne - 9/25/2003 12:27:25 PM
          • your faulty assumption is - Buster - 9/25/2003 11:03:24 PM
            • Fortune telling - Mary Anne - 9/26/2003 1:51:05 AM
              • re: Fortune telling - gbaikie - 9/27/2003 2:03:07 AM
          • re: UN support - Tom Brosz - 9/25/2003 4:32:00 PM
            • The third alternative - Mary Anne - 9/25/2003 5:49:42 PM
      • re: Why did he address the UN, then? - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 5:37:38 PM
        • re: "He went in front of them to lay out a reasonable approach to bringing Iraq into the community of nations." - alcaray - 9/24/2003 9:23:31 PM
          • Reconstruction plan - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 10:13:36 PM
            • I really don't agree that the UN is happy with the current state of affairs (n/t) - alcaray - 9/24/2003 10:36:04 PM
              • you no doubt base this on their rush to help Iraq right? Only someone satisfied with the satus quo would do nothing but make chest beating speeches (n/t) - Buster - 9/25/2003 12:59:35 AM
                • Huh? (n/t) - alcaray - 9/25/2003 4:29:51 PM
                  • the sarcasm escaped you - Buster - 9/26/2003 11:36:11 PM
    • Perhaps you are asking the wrong question - McFly - 9/24/2003 2:22:07 PM
      • re: the wrong question - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 5:32:06 PM
        • re: the wrong question - gbaikie - 9/24/2003 11:42:06 PM
          • Whoa. Good point. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 11:58:05 PM
      • But you are offering the right answer - Don - 9/24/2003 2:49:13 PM
    • re: No - Raoul - 9/24/2003 12:20:42 PM
  • Bush’s U.N. fiasco - Don - 9/24/2003 4:59:35 AM
    • the UN needs the US we don't need the UN especially when ruled by hidden agendas and motives - Buster - 9/24/2003 6:47:45 AM
      • Rome didn't need no outside help, neither! (n/t) - LJ - 9/24/2003 3:42:34 PM
        • not until internal strife and ineptidude made it weak - Buster - 9/25/2003 1:05:43 AM
      • So why is it that... - Don - 9/24/2003 1:31:27 PM
        • you confuse what is desirable with what is necessary. The US can do it alone albeit with a little pain. The UN is squat without the US. (n/t) - Buster - 9/25/2003 1:02:00 AM
        • Can we clear something up? - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 5:40:28 PM
          • Because he IS, but he DIDN'T (n/t) - LJ - 9/24/2003 6:01:32 PM
            • we should impeach anyone who dares learn from mistakes eh? - Buster - 9/25/2003 1:16:59 AM